Needing to have evidence to not have your theory marked as misleading doesn't disincentivize research into conspiracies. It does the opposite. There would be more research into these theories so that their purveyors could say them without being labeled misleading. Anyone would still be able to do their own research under this model too, they would hopefully just know not to blindly believe what they read.

Investigating wrongdoing and backing up findings with evidence is extremely important. Spouting unfounded lies is not.

But do you agree we should stop it when their instrument of voicing said opinion goes from online forum to pitchforks and firearms?

If so, where do you propose the line exists?

If not, I would suggest you're advocating that the "loudest" voice (where volume is measured by firepower) always gets their way.

> you'll also inevitably silence people from saying it if it ever becomes true in the future.

Clearly not - we know that it is possible for elections to be fraudulent and people can talk about it. We don't yet live in a post-truth society. Evidence counts.

I just want extraordinary claims without evidence to be marked as such. If you want to claim the election is rigged you should need some evidence. At that point everyone can make an informed decision about if they believe the claim is true.